Cohabitation and Marital Expectations Among Single Millennials in the U.S.

Manning, Wendy D.; Smock, Pamela J.; Fettro, Marshal Neal

doi:10.1007/s11113-018-09509-8

Cited by 36 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Social boundaries typically define social hierarchy by assigning clear value judgments that separate cohabitation from marriage; this distinction is made clear in countries where public policy privileges marriage. More Americans expect to marry than cohabit (Manning, Smock, & Fettro, ), and even in countries with high levels of cohabitation, such as Norway, marriage is considered the ideal (Lappegård & Noack, ). In the United States, marriage is often viewed as a singular life course achievement, a capstone that brings status and often a big celebration.…”

Section: Overview Of Contemporary Union Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the United States and elsewhere, the role cohabitation plays in the courtship process has been clearly established. The large majority (68%) of 18‐ to 24‐year‐old women who expected to marry also expected to first cohabit with their future spouses (Manning et al, ). In fact, much of the literature on the function of cohabitation frames it as a precursor to marriage (Sassler & Miller, ).…”

Section: Research Themesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cohabitation and Marriage: Complexity and Diversity in Union‐Formation Patterns

Sassler

Lichter

2020

J of Marriage and Family

197

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nonmarital cohabitation and marriage are now fundamentally linked, a fact that is routinely reflected in current research on union formation. Unprecedented changes in the timing, duration, and sequencing of intimate co‐residential relationships have made the study of traditional marriage far more complex today than in the past. It is now clear that a white, middle‐class, American‐centric research template has become increasingly anachronistic. In this review article, we begin by providing an overview of contemporary theory, empirical approaches, and demographic trends in cohabitation and marriage, focusing primarily on the United States, but also distinguishing the U.S. from patterns found in other high‐income societies, including European countries, Canada, Australia, and in East Asia. We place the spotlight on the causes and consequences of union transitions. We identify the commonalities between cohabitation and marriage, but also key differences that are expressed unevenly across different populations and cultural groups. The rise in nonmarital cohabitation has upended conventional theoretical models and measurement approaches to the study of traditional marriage, complicating matters but also reinvigorating family scholarship on union formation and its implications for partners, children, and society.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of Contemporary Union Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Themesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cohabitation and Marriage: Complexity and Diversity in Union‐Formation Patterns

Sassler

Lichter

2020

J of Marriage and Family

197

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Same-sex couples, but not opposite-sex couples, in Switzerland currently have the possibility of entering registered partnerships; therefore, for heterosexual couples, cohabitation refers to co-residence without any legal implications. Given the importance of socio-economic resources for partnering transitions and expectations [63,64], in addition to education, I added a measure of employment. This distinguished between being employed (grouping respondents who are salaried employees, independent, working for the family business, or in apprenticeship), or out of employment (grouping respondents who are in unemployment, training, retirement, those who have a disability, homemakers, or others).…”

Section: Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The demography of swiping right. An overview of couples who met through dating apps in Switzerland

Potârcă

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the span of almost ten years, phone dating apps have transformed the dating scene by normalizing and, according to some voices, gamifying the digital quest for a partner. Despite amplified discussion on how swipe-based apps damage the fabric of intimate ties, scientific accounts on whether they have led to different relationship patterns are missing. Using 2018 survey data from Switzerland, this study provides a rich overview of couples who met through dating apps by addressing three main themes: 1) family formation intentions, 2) relationship satisfaction and individual well-being, and 3) assortative mating. The data indicate that in Switzerland, dating apps have recently taken over as main online dating context. Results further show that couples formed through mobile dating have stronger cohabiting intentions than those formed in non-digital settings. Women who found their partner through a dating app also have stronger fertility desires and intentions than those who found their partner offline. Generally, there are no differences between couples initiated through dating apps and those initiated elsewhere regarding relationship and life satisfaction. Though more data are needed to capture the full range of users’ romantic and sexual experiences, current results mitigate some of the concerns regarding the short-term orientation or the poor quality of relationships formed through mobile dating. Findings finally suggest that dating apps play an important role in altering couple composition by allowing for more educationally diverse and geographically distant couples.

show abstract

“…Women are more likely to say that they would currently like to be married, that marriage was very important to them, or that they expected to be married in the next ten years than young adult men (Scott et al 2009). Most women have a strong desire to marry either a future or current partner (Lichter et al 2004) and a vast majority (94%) of single women in young adulthood expect that they will marry, indicating marriage is still a widespread aspiration for women (Manning et al 2019). Qualitative research of cohabitors has also found that women were more eager to become engaged than men, both before and during cohabitation, but were "waiting to be asked" (Sassler and Miller 2011b).…”

Section: Cohabitation Marital Plans and Gendermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Results are also inconclusive on the association between socioeconomic status and marital plans. One study found no educational differences in marital plans among female cohabitors (Kuo and Raley 2016), whereas another study found single young adult women with more educated mothers had greater expectations of marriage than those whose mothers were less educated (Manning et al 2019). Experiences with parental unions also condition views toward marriage (Perry and Brooms 2013), as those who grew up in a household without both parents have lower odds of marital plans (Guzzo 2009).…”

Section: Cohabitation Marital Plans and Gendermentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences in the Marital Plans and Union Transitions of First Cohabitations

Parker

2020

Popul Res Policy Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an era of changing relationship norms, plans for marriage are an increasingly complex yet important indicator of the link between cohabitation and marriage. Despite qualitative evidence on this complexity, little is known about the nuances of marital plans and gender differences at the population level. This study introduces the concept of "informal" marital plans-cohabitations beginning with some intentions to marry that had yet to be formalized. Drawing on data of heterosexual cohabitors in their first coresidential union from the National Survey of Family Growth (2011-2015, n = 5545), I examine the sociodemographic correlates of marital plans as well as their consequences for men's and women's union transitions. The results show significant gender differences in reports of marital plans at the time of moving in together, with women more likely to report engagement and men more likely to report informal marital plans. Although having any marital intentions is positively associated with transitioning to marriage for both genders, engagement is a significantly stronger predictor of marriage than informal marital plans. Pronounced gender differences are found with respect to the dissolution of first cohabitations, as both informal and formal marital plans are more protective against dissolution for men than for women. Distinguishing informal marital plans from engagement provides meaningful new insights into the role of cohabitation in modern American union formation.

show abstract

Cohabitation and Marital Expectations Among Single Millennials in the U.S.

Cited by 36 publications

References 44 publications

Cohabitation and Marriage: Complexity and Diversity in Union‐Formation Patterns

Cohabitation and Marriage: Complexity and Diversity in Union‐Formation Patterns

The demography of swiping right. An overview of couples who met through dating apps in Switzerland

Gender Differences in the Marital Plans and Union Transitions of First Cohabitations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About